The Supreme Court on Thursday granted the Election Commission of India (ECI) three additional weeks to respond to petitions challenging recent amendments to the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.
These amendments have raised concerns about transparency in the electoral process.
Petitions Filed By Jairam Ramesh, Others
The bench, led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, had earlier issued notices to the Centre and the ECI on January 15 following a petition filed by Congress leader Jairam Ramesh. Senior advocate Maninder Singh, representing the poll body, requested more time to file the Commission’s response—a plea the court accepted. The matter is now scheduled for hearing in the week beginning July 21.
Two additional Public Interest Litigations (PILs), filed by Shyam Lal Pal and RTI activist Anjali Bhardwaj, are also pending before the court and have been clubbed with Ramesh’s case. Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for Ramesh during the hearing.
Challenge To The Amendment Of Rule 93(2)(a)
The core issue in all three petitions is the amendment to Rule 93(2)(a) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, introduced in December 2023. Previously, this rule allowed “all other papers relating to the election” to be available for public inspection. However, the amended version now restricts access only to those documents “as specified in these rules,” effectively narrowing public access.
Ramesh’s petition argues that the rule change has been done “very cleverly” to block access to CCTV footage and other materials, under the pretext that they could reveal voter identities. Singhvi, speaking for Ramesh, countered this concern, saying, “Voting choices were never revealed and the CCTV footage couldn’t reveal votes.” He urged the court to direct the Centre and ECI to respond before the next hearing.
Alleged Violation Of Constitutional Rights
Bhardwaj’s plea, filed through advocate Prashant Bhushan, directly challenges the validity of the Conduct of Elections (Second Amendment) Rules, 2024. It claims that the changes violate fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution by limiting public scrutiny of election records.
The petition argues that these restrictions reduce transparency and could pave the way for electoral malpractice. It also emphasizes that the move runs contrary to the objectives of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, which seeks to ensure governmental accountability.
Ramesh Hopes For Judicial Intervention
Jairam Ramesh, in his plea, expressed hope that the apex court would step in to protect the sanctity of elections. “The integrity of the electoral process is fast eroding. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will help restore it,” he stated.
As the debate over electoral transparency continues, all eyes are now on the July hearing, which may determine whether public access to crucial election-related documents will be preserved or further restricted.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International